AFRICOM and U.S.-African Relations - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of Africa.

Moderator: PoFo Africa Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
The Economist
The Pentagon courts governments in Africa, especially where there's oil

IN THE dying days of Charles Taylor's murderous regime in Liberia, the American navy moored off his capital, Monrovia. Some 200-plus marines came ashore to secure the American embassy against trigger-happy rebels and crowds of panicking civilians alike, as the city burned. Five years on, American forces are back, in the shape of an amphibious landing ship 190 metres (600 feet) long and a smaller high-speed catamaran. But this time the troops came ashore to mend roads, renovate schools and health clinics, bring medical supplies and provide free health care. They also took on board 40 soldiers from the new Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL) for training in martial arts and leadership.

Helpful though these efforts are in a dirt-poor country, they were also a public-relations exercise to persuade suspicious African governments to welcome America's planned Africa Command (AFRICOM), with an increased military presence on the continent, before it becomes fully operational in October. Dubbed the Africa Partnership Station, two American navy ships, the USS Fort McHenry and the twin-hulled USS Swift, are near the end of a six-month cruise that has taken in seven countries in the Gulf of Guinea (Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Liberia, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Senegal) with the aim of improving maritime security as well as winning hearts and minds in this oil-rich region.

This so-called partnership station, enthuses its commander, Commodore John Nowell, is “a case study in the strengths that AFRICOM brings to bear.” It is “multinational, multi-agency, [in] partnerships and relationships.” Another senior navy man says that the new policy requires “a mind shift from ‘We're going to take the beach’ to ‘We're going to deliver supplies to the beach’.” The commodore says that more than 1,200 African troops have now been trained on board the Fort McHenry since November, while an array of naval officers from Britain, Cameroon, France, Germany, Ghana and Portugal have taken commanding roles on the ship. “A very NATO model,” says one of them.

All the same, AFRICOM has so far been poorly received on the continent. After it was announced in February 2007, Nigeria, South Africa and a number of regional bodies said they did not want a bigger American military presence in Africa, fearing that AFRICOM might challenge their own security forces. Some Africans talked glumly of American-Africa relations being militarised. They note that it was Donald Rumsfeld, a hawkish secretary of defence, who first promoted the AFRICOM idea. This hostility has made the Americans shelve plans to build a small headquarters, plus regional offices, in Africa. For now, at least, AFRICOM's headquarters will stay in Europe. On a recent tour of Africa, President George Bush repeatedly denied that America wanted military bases there.

In any event, America's attitude has changed sharply since a Pentagon report in 1995 said that Africa was of “very little traditional strategic interest”. The administration has so far spent $127m on AFRICOM and has asked for another $389m for 2009. America's key interests in Africa remain terrorism and oil. Terrorists linked to al-Qaeda attacked the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing more than 200 people. America gets more than 15% of its oil from Africa, and the figure is rising. It also worries about China's growing influence there.

“We wouldn't be here if it wasn't in [American] interests,” acknowledges Commodore Nowell. Despite the talk of soft power and the much-vaunted humanitarian aspect of the naval presence in the Gulf of Guinea, the real emphasis is still on security. It is plainly in America's interest to help African navies and armies to stop thefts of crude oil, illegal fishing and immigration, drug trafficking and piracy. All these hurt local economies, undermine political stability and threaten to turn poor countries into failed states, such as Somalia, that may breed terrorism.

I guess this is being done out of America's fears that the whole "War on Terror" is going to spread to Africa, particularly countries in the Sahel like Mali, Niger, Chad, etc. Even if problems in the Middle East and North Africa spread south, I doubt AFRICOM would be able to prevent it. And if the U.S. is trying to make friends in Afirca, this is no way to do it.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
I doubt AFRICOM would be able to prevent it. And if the U.S. is trying to make friends in Afirca, this is no way to do it.

On the other hand, in that region, the U.S. can generally count on the support of Ethiopia, and there has been a sizeable amount of goodwill garnered in Somalia in recent years. With the U.S. effectively leading a puppet-government, how exactly can it refuse Washington's wishes? African Warlords don't care much about ideology.
User avatar
By Kaspar
On the other hand, in that region, the U.S. can generally count on the support of Ethiopia

The only countries Ethiopia really plays a role in are Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, and to a very much lesser extent, Sudan. While the U.S. can count on the country's support, Ethiopia's power is confined to the horn of Africa.
User avatar
By millie_(A)TCK
This was already covered when Bush visited Africa, most African countries had media printing on the real reasons for the visit and why Africans don't truly welcome him there. Still, not sure whose presence is worse, the west who have caused mass damage but at least have critics in their country or China that though not with racist violence is taking over the continent nevertheless is aloof of human rights concerns in the continent and has no critics to speak of in its own country. Africa should strengthen its ties to South idea why Africa needs the west or China when it can trade just as well and in better terms with S. America.
User avatar
By Dave
South America? South America's industrial sector is quite primitive and exports few manufactured goods, Embraer being a major exception. Both South America and Africa are mostly producers of primary products, so I hardly see what trade opportunities there are in that.

All that falls apart if you allow an expansion of[…]

That is great, but at the end of the day the capi[…]

:roll: If they've already had the first done, then[…]

Shooting of Adam Toledo

Not the same at all. I saw the story on ABC, CBS[…]